Research article

Mozambique Public investment in water and sanitation sector and the targets of the SDG6

Author
  • Manuel Salvador Conceição Rebelo orcid logo (Faculdade de Ciências da Terra e Ambiente, Universidade Pedagogica, Maputo, Mozambique)

This is version 2 of this article, the published version can be found at: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000067

Abstract

Many developing countries may not reach targets of providing access to safe water sources and sanitation services for all by 2030. Access to these services is a fundamental requirement for the well-being of individuals and the development of nations. A little over half of Mozambique´s population has access to safe water sources. In contrast, access to sanitation services has not kept pace with the progress made in water access. In this article, based on data from the General State Account of Mozambique, which includes the description of annual investment made by the Government and using the results of the Household Budget Surveys, it is shown that if the average percentage values of public investment of 2009 to 2021 be the same in the following years in the water and sanitation sector it will not reach the goals of sustainable objective number 6 in 2030.

Keywords: Mozambique, SDG6, access to water and sanitation, public investment

362 Views

Published on
23 Jan 2024
Peer Reviewed

 Open peer review from UCL Open: Environment Editorial Office

Review

Review information

DOI:: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-ECON.A89FYF.v1.RYKNCZ
License:
This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0 , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com .

ScienceOpen disciplines: Social & Behavioral Sciences , Economics
Keywords: Mozambique, SGD6, Access to water and Sanitation, Public Investment , Water

Review text

UNIVERSIT É CHEIKH ANTA DIOP DE DAKAR

DEPARTEMENT DE GEOLOGIE

REVIEWER REPORT

Review of:

Mozambique Public investment in water and sanitation sector and the targets of the SDG6

I have been asked by the Journals Coordinator to evaluate the relevant of the presented publication.

I suggest reviewing the following points:

INTRODUCTION :

1. Consider adding a brief description of on-site sanitation systems and their contribution to achieve the UN SDG 6 in the context of Mozambique and developing countries in general.

METHODOLOGY :

1. Lack of methodological detail about household survey, that is data on access to water and sanitation from (IOF). If CGE reports provide data on investment, IOF must define approach for this household survey, for example include a survey sheet that could inform on statistics, on-site infrastructure, interview conducted, etc...

2. Explain how were the results of a survey carried out on a few households transferred to the whole country? How this was done? I think it's valid for a given district or area?

3. Page 7 line 5: Improved latrine and improved traditional latrines in Urban and rural areas? The description of on-site-sanitation systems should be made earlier in the manuscript.

4. Line 12: From 2009 to 2017:  more than 70% of the investment budget came from outside the State Budget. Contribution reached 91% in 2017.

It is unclear,

In your analyse on the trend of investment and the answer the question posed, is the private financial support taken into account?

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION :

1 . It would be more relevant to include the population growth rate in your analyse and discussion to answer the question posed.

2. Page 9 last sentence: In case of sanitation, the scenario is more complex …..That should be defined or briefly explained

After these comments on the substance, I would like to comment on the form of the paper :

1. Lack of statistics in the abstract, for example data on Mozambique population?

2. IOF 2019/20: The exact references are not given in the bibliography.

3. Page 8 line 6: I think is Figure number 3 and not two as you mentioned.

General Factors Ratings

Level of importance: 3/5

Level of validity: 2/5

Level of completeness: 3/5

Level of comprehensibility: 3/5

Summary

The area of research engages with a fundamental challenge in large African cities, the safe water supply and sanitation provision in rapidly growing, informal settlements in Africa and beyond. The research seeks to understand whether the current pace of state budget allocations to the water sector still guarantee the achievement of the objective of sustainable development nº 6 by 2030.

My view is that there is room for improvement as noted above in my evaluation. The authors should improve the manuscript, because the methodological approach, scientific content and importance of the conclusions merit such improvement without any doubt.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Seynabou Cisse FAYE



Note:
This review refers to round of peer review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.

 Open peer review from Alfred Opere

Review

Review information

DOI:: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-ECON.AY2ATN.v1.RZNAZM
License:
This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0 , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com .

ScienceOpen disciplines: Social & Behavioral Sciences , Economics
Keywords: Mozambique, SGD6, Access to water and Sanitation, Public Investment , Water

Review text

1. Use the standard term (SDG6)

2. should we use objectives for goals?

3. Access to safe water and sanitation services is also determined by the water resources development potential other than investment in infrastructure

4. Again let us be consistent whether we want use goals or objectives

5. The objective of the study should be brought out clearly just before the methods and materials are discussed.

6. Under sec, 2 "Methodology and Materials"; line 1; use the word "study" instead of "article"

7. In table 1: include the year this was prepared

8. How were the comparisons for the datasets done?

9. PQG should be written in full the first time it is used. This applies to all other abbreviations

10. Sec. 3; paragraph 3; Explain briefly why SDG6 has largely been a rhetoric in many African countries

11. Sec. 3; paragraph 4; line 6: Which year does "Currently" refer to

12. Sec. 3; paragraph 4; line 7: When you use these % e.g. 55.7% of population; it is important to give the actual population as well for comparative analysis. Population is dynamic and just a mere % may be misleading.

13. Sec. 3; paragraph 5; line 5: What explains the slow coverage growth rate in (IOF2014/15 and IOF2019/20)?

14. Page 7; paragraph 3; line 2: correct the word "inconstant" to "inconsistent"

15. Page 7; paragraph 3. Is there a direct correlation between the public sector investment, coverage rate and the capacity for the sector to absorb the allocation? This need to be clarified



Note:
This review refers to round of peer review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.